DTs

[Gulnyr]

Having the choose your path scenario could work in a pay to play world but only if both paths have the same chance of high influence in the world. Restricting access to the more action fun areas due to the path you choose might be hard for business.

Sure, but my point was kind of 'take the risk to get the reward' or 'stay safe and miss a little.'  I didn't mean to suggest that there would be huge swaths of content missing from the softies' experience.  A softie can be a baron but not a king, or a company commander but not a general, or get all but the very tip top elite skills, or be ineligible for maybe one event a month, max - which could be a rather important plotty sort of event, yes, and someone would complain.  Everyone, deep down, to one degree or another, wants something for nothing.  Everyone, deep down, to one degree or another, wants all the good and none of the bad.  The way I imagined it, they would get almost everything, but couldn't really hit the tip top rung of whichever ladder they climb.  No pain, no gain, in a limited sort of way.

But if the path choices took the player in totally different directions (areas, items, world NPC interaction) that could end up in the same place (like being a WL) now that would be an interesting way to go. The ones who choose a life of less risk could go down a path that has them more involved with the high politics of the world and be champions of the people were the ones that choose a more risky path would be the action heros called on in when all other negotiations fail.

The problem with this is that it forces players who want to play adventurers to pay for the chance at permadeath.  Isn't that part of the problem now, that some people want to do the adventurer thing but hate permadeath?  The player would no longer be consciously choosing to play a softie adventurer, but must instead be a softie politician or baker.  That just takes the agreement out of the hands of the player again.

Also, I don't think there should be a distinction between combat and non-combat roles and "classes."  Players should be able to give their characters any skills they want, as long as they gain them properly according to the system.  If the player of a tailor wants to switch his character to adventuring, have at.  Maybe he could even do both, like a lot of our characters do now (even though our current system is weird).  It's like multiclassing.  "Hi!  I'm a Fighter/Tailor!"  It's just a matter of taking combat skills at the next opportunity rather than new tailoring skills.

If you are doing exactly what your fellow craftsman is doing, and he turns out ten items, and you turn out five, I would call that unfair.

Okay, yes, I agree with that.  ALL things being equal, two doing the same thing should produce the same results.  BUT! the random roll, to me, has always been a way of maintaining those minutiae that can't be included any other way, the things that make us all different, even twins.  From one day to the next, even one hour to the next, your hands may not work exactly the same, whether from excessive exertion prior to the moment in question, an influx of caffeine, being angry or irritated, or who knows what else.  The random roll helps take care of all that for us.  Besides, no two people are going to be exactly alike, even if that's what the framework of the game tells us.

No, sorry, where one may get a favorable roll and another an unfavorable one is unfair. Disparity = unfairness.

Well, yeah, okay, but identical results are boring.  *shrug*

Do you want "real life" in the death system?

Despite the fabulous things science can teach us about precisely why things happen, an absolute pantsload of stuff seems utterly random all the time.  So, yes, I do want some of real life's apparent randomness in my fantasy death system, please.  

Whether you accept an outcome as "luck of the draw" is an attitude to the outcome, not whether the outcome is fair or not. This attitude is in fact used to rationalise why an unfavourable (or unfair) result has just happened to me when I'm such a nice person, viz "it wasn't personal, it was just luck-of-the-draw".

Okay, just to define 'fair' a little more, I personally feel that 'unfair' implies intention.  To be unfair, someone needs to do it on purpose, to say it roughly.  There has to be some act of impartiality.  Random and/or unexpected events are no one's fault, no one set them in motion to do anything, so they can't be unfair by my definition.  It's not unfair that a tornado destroyed one house and left another because there was no intention behind it.  It's not unfair that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs and mammals took over the Earth because there was no intention behind it.

I understand what you're saying, though.  I just don't think having everyone start the same and tossing in some random numbers is unfair.  And, even though I know you are not advocating this extreme example in particular, making characters come out the far side exactly the same as everyone else doesn't really make for a game worth playing.  The randomness adds to the experience.

I believe that is the main reason to incorporate randomness into a system is to create uncertainty. The question is how much uncertainty is to be applied?

Yes!  That!  We're both talking about things that are fair, a fair system versus a fair outcome.  Talking about how much random might be a better way to discuss it.  It could lead to new ideas.  I just seem to think the current level of random isn't all that bad.  I do think that a one-in-three chance of losing a strand wouldn't fly too well on the MMO, though, so there probably ought to be a cap set lower than that somewhere.

A certain play style is promoted for the current death system. A certain play style will evolve for whatever death system is used. This is unavoidable. The death system influences the style of play.

Surely.  I agree that any permadeath system will favor those who don't die; it is a death system after all.  It just seems that a system based on number of deaths, as has been suggested, would create a more defined set of builds to help 'defeat' the system than a random system would allow.  A random system allows builds that are not optimum the same chance to 'survive' as a min-maxed build, as much as that is possible in a system that requires death of characters to function at all.

Next idea, then. Perhaps if an XP penalty were enforced upon death for the non-stranders. Ripping away a portion of the energy you've grown, rather than tearing at tethers that - however disturbing it may be - don't exactly harm you when they're cut.

I see a potential problem.  If I'm understanding correctly, everyone can do everything regardless of whether a gung ho or a softie.  In that case, gung ho players don't gain anything by taking the risk, but still have the chance to lose everything when their characters perm.  On the other hand, softie players get everything and can never lose their characters, needing only a few bashy trips to wherever to recover the lost XP and be right back where they were.  That seems skewed in favor of the softies.

[jrizz]

I like the way SZ was going with the "choose your poison" path. You can have SS or you can have XP loss. This way it is the consumers (players) that decide what is better.

If you think about it we already have the gung-ho and softy choice now. The gung-ho players are out there taking big risks in tough areas to gain most of their XP and the softies are gaining most of their XP from quests and the like which in general are a lower risk way of getting XP in that you are getting XP the whole time you are playing, not just in battle. Of course that path has its risks as well since GM run fights tend to be much harder then AI run fights

[Script Wrecked]

Okay, just to define 'fair' a little more, I personally feel that 'unfair' implies intention.  To be unfair, someone needs to do it on purpose, to say it roughly.  There has to be some act of impartiality.  Random and/or unexpected events are no one's fault, no one set them in motion to do anything, so they can't be unfair by my definition.

That clarifies things (viz, your position) a lot.

To counter-clarify, I think everyone else is saying "unfair" is something along the lines of "I haven't done anything to deserve/warrant this detrimental result", exclusive of intent or lack thereof. Again, its concerned with the outcome, rather than the cause, or intent (or lack thereof) of the cause.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Nehetsrev]

I like the way SZ was going with the "choose your poison" path. You can have SS or you can have XP loss. This way it is the consumers (players) that decide what is better.

If you think about it we already have the gung-ho and softy choice now. The gung-ho players are out there taking big risks in tough areas to gain most of their XP and the softies are gaining most of their XP from quests and the like which in general are a lower risk way of getting XP in that you are getting XP the whole time you are playing, not just in battle. Of course that path has its risks as well since GM run fights tend to be much harder then AI run fights

I reject the notion that quests are less dangerous than bashing/adventuring!  Anyone who's been on a quest with Emwonk T'noduoy can attest to the fact that he averages nearly one death per quest session.  In fact, he's died more times while in a DM run quest session than he has otherwise.  Or, at least it sure seems like it to me!  

[jrizz]

that is because he is annoying

[Acacea]

He is not annoying! But wow, as to whether quests are for softies are not,  anyone of that mindset has not been on some of the bloodiest ones...you know - the ones that you can't memorize spawns for, respawn out of, or change anything because of... nor fallen to hellball traps, no-save plot NPC death spells, no-save insta-death consequences for wrong answers to puzzles... nor blown up an island, caused a plague, or fought at a bloodpool...nor had a "summarized" rp-only rundown of fighting with the knowledge that if you RP-died, you WOULD still roll a d100 and have a soul strand removed manually.

With a lot of the new content we have cool things for hardcore adventuring... but to say that either pure questing or pure "adventuring" (as if adventures don't mean quests as well as bashing? I don't get that) is low-risk or for softies is beyond weird... I love adventuring in the new areas, and there are a lot of quests I enjoy, but "risk" wise there is no contest for me... I understand that a lot people might not feel the same way there, but you don't hear the plot questers telling parties that the emerald crypt runs are for softies... why tell those that get trapped in sand filling labyrinths, ripped apart by rabid apes, melted by Milara or disintegrated by Bloodstone, etc, that their way is for softies? There is room for being shy and cautious in both areas, and room for danger in both, heh. Perhaps that players and GMs believe that one or another is less risky is a sign they should get out and do one or the other a bit more

[jrizz]

Well opinions do vary on that.

Now trying to find how two types of systems can coexist in the same play world is going to be difficult unless there are two versions of the same world and there is some ind of PC crossover for significant events when they transect.

[EdTheKet]

I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and
2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.
3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)

If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.

[Script Wrecked]

I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and

I think there might be a massive spontaneous outbreak of the "root" dance, both IG and OOC.

2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.

How may defenseless orphans do I have to sacrifice, and to what dark god?

...

IG... I meant IG... Honest.

3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)

Rounding up orphans isn't hard, its just a question of how many. Unless you only want those blonde haired, blue-eyed ones. Might take a little longer.

If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.

Yes, yes. The first sign of weakness is to consider the possibility...

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[EdTheKet]

The first sign of weakness is to consider the possibility...

You know me so badly, Script Wrecked

[aragwen]

I was wondering:
 1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and
 2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.
 3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)
 
 If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.

 
 1) I would not say I am 100% for it, nor 100% against it. But if this was a possibility I would think it should be limited and not something easy to gain. If you could reattach a soul strand ten times, I think it would defeat the whole purpose of the death system. But perhaps it can be done based on certain rules. For example once every six months or maybe once per level grouping. For example once every ten levels.
 
 2) I dont think per say you should be able to pay for it (in true that is at least). But I think something like someone else giving up a soul strand for someone else would be quite neat. So a husband could gift one of his strands to his wife or kid. Maybe a soul strand could be bought with experience (though not sure how to handle this IC) but it need to be a decent chunk in my opinion. Something like 20% of your current level requirement or 1% or total experience. I think the idea should be it is "expensive" otherwise if it is cheap, life will become cheap.
 
 3) I dont think it should be as easy as I want a soul strand here is 100,000 true, but dont think it should be impossible either. Does not help you loose two strands to try and get one back. But I think travelling to the Plane of Lost (or whatever it is called now) and bargain or negotiate for a strand in return for the price (whatever this might be) might be in order. Just think it should less impossible than what it is currently. So maybe you have to pass some test (scripted random quest) or have to endure some hardship to get there.
 
 All in all I think it should be limited and not infinite, and some effort should go into this to obtain it, not just loot 100,000 true. The test should be of such a nature that you surely would not dare do it more than a couple of times.

[Lalaith Va'lash]

I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and

Agreed with SW.  I also think it'd give those with 9 and 14th DT something else to drive and fight for, so even if they did fall in the process it would be a valiant effort and a story worth telling! ... and you'd see some happy dances!

2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.

Somebody would pay whatever was asked. The price would just decide how hard others need to work

3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)

I like the idea of it being a certain quest. A dangerous one with risk proportional to the reward... Not just a "Here is 1,000,000 true, I'd like a soul strand returned" But true and items work -- though, wondering what the soul mother does with those

If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.

It does, it definitely does. I do want to say how much it helps is proportional to the price of course, I mean...  If they were entirely unobtainable like... "You must deliver 100 blond hair blue eyed orphans to the plane of the lost on the 5th day of the 13th month when both moons are in the sky, directly before a purple and green sunrise while supplementing your gift with 1,000,000 true, seven sets of enchanted mithril amour, a leaf from the great oak, and the claw of a fire breathing dragon, while riding on Rofirein himself!"  Then it helps a little less .  But I don't think it cheapens the system if the price* is high but obtainable, and it does instill hope.  

Lala


*By price I mean quest/cost/risk not just monetary

p.s. and.... obviously I was kidding on the aforementioned price!  I would never suggest the delivering of 100 children *shifty eyes*

[jrizz]

Reattachment is a great way to go. So to your questions:

1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS

I'm all for it. Just to make sure, we are still talking about the MMO here. It should only be available to a PC that is two away from perming.

2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.

The bar could not be too high in a pay to play world for this but at the same time it should not be to low. It would have to be doable by most PCs so it would have to scale to the power/level/build (whatever the MMO uses to measure progress). As to "pay" it would have to sting but not too much.

3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)

As I said it would need to be reachable by most "levels" say after the equivalent of 10. I would like to see it take the shape of a scripted quest of some kind as well but more like this:

1. It would take a well balanced group to get the PC to some place.
- The risk should be medium.
- the path should be through a combo of no magic, high magic, and wild magic areas.
2. At some point it should be a only the person in need goes from here alone (I know it could be a line of folks but still one at a time).
3. The candidate then needs to go through some ordeal and pay some price (XP, stat point, etc..)
4. The candidate is then passed through a bindstone kind of thing (ported back to some bindstone) and must wait out a full recovery. No logging out and waiting but the reflection time must be done fully IG.
5. The reason I would put in the port part is that the group has to get back with whoever is left so it would discourage the round up type of thing.

[EdTheKet]

Just to make sure, we are still talking about the MMO here.

We are!

[Pibemanden]

I was wondering:
1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS

I wouldn't mind as long as you could still die somehow and not end up going in a loop of loosing strands and getting some back.

2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.

Well I would leave that up to Lore to state how much should be payed for a return. As long as it is a reasonable price to pay for a player who playes around an avarge of 2 or so hours each day(Or well 14 hours a week) and not something that can be obtained easier by playing more or less but more by having played a "long time"(Not saying that you have to have played for years but a couple of months maybe) on the server.

3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)

Actually I would like it to scale with level, since the current system sort of dictates that the more powerful the person the more willing the harvester is to get his/her hands on the persons soul, so I would guess that the harder it will be to get her to part with a hold of a soul of a powerful person.
I sort of like the idea of traveling to the harvesters place and get the piece of your soul back, just as back when you could get your fallen commerades on the plane. Actually make it sort of like that but instead of instant permadeath on visiting the plane make it so that you will loose a strand if you die there no matter what.
Also as a side note I would like for this thing to stop at some point, say in nwn terms if you reach level 30-35 the harvester simply wont part with your soul no matter what and you will be a target for permadeath. This way players can actually have a chance to see all of the world given that they can get to a higher level but at some point everyone dies so at some point you will just have to forget about picking up more strands.

[Chongo]

I was wondering:
 1) what people would think if it was possible to re-attach a SS and
 2)how much they would be willing to "pay" for the re-attachment of a SS.
 3) how easy or hard this should be (i.e. only for high levels, or for everyone, or only on certain quests, or for a bunch of True, or... you name it)
 
 If (please note the word "if") we would implement such a thing, I would think that this would compensate (at least somewhat) for SS loss due to lags, disconnects or other technical glitches.

 
 1) I think this is a good idea, but should come at great sacrifice.
 
 2) You can't make this based off gold, items, or anything that is based off an economy like ours.  Talk about the rich getting richer... this sort of thing would create so much hate and angst.  Now if you consider it a process or effort on the soul itself, how about something like this:
 
 - You're at 9 SS's lost, you now have the option to seek out an NPC healer and be set back to 'half-strength' with your soul, or 5 SS's remaining.  The process of doing this weakens you, you lose half your total experience, and lose a point of constitution (white not green, so permanent).  You can do this as many times as you want until you bottom out on that stat (i.e. 3).  So let's look at an example.  
 
 Character A facing imminent death, and goes to the NPC.  The process occurs, and at 20 million experience, he loses 10 million, and all the levels that go with that.  His constitution of 18 is reduced to 17, and where the maximum +12 'buffed' constitution was once 30, it is now 29.  In the process of regaining strength to the attaching strands, he went from 9 SS's to 4 SS's lost.  Were he to have had SMD, and were at 14 SS's, he would go to 9 SS's lost.
 
 3) It's only fair if it's for everyone.  Yes, there should be a cost to maintain an atmosphere of 'business' with the NPC healer, shaman, witchdoctor... whatever.  But it shouldn't be made to breed exclusivity (i.e., don't make it a million gold).  When we do things like making this process require a certain epic level, or an epic item, or an absurd amount of gold... we reap what we sow.  People will become more organized to ensure their safety, and they'll focus on finding the means to do so.  They will horde wealth or whatever else is necessary, and we will find guild-like accumulation whereby the rich stay rich, the old players show great advantage, and the likelihood of OOC financial support for 'my buddy's new character' becomes more desirable.  And it's not the old player's or the guild's fault... they are adapting to a system which we present in the most natural of instincts, self preservation.  So it needs to be for everyone.  The good players, the bad players, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, etc etc.  It needs to be based solely on individual loss alone without the opportunity for outside influence, aid, or what have you.

[Dorganath]

- You're at 9 SS's lost, you now have the option to seek out an NPC healer and be set back to 'half-strength' with your soul, or 5 SS's remaining.  The process of doing this weakens you, you lose half your total experience, and lose a point of constitution (white not green, so permanent).  You can do this as many times as you want until you bottom out on that stat (i.e. 3).  So let's look at an example.  
 
 Character A facing imminent death, and goes to the NPC.  The process occurs, and at 20 million experience, he loses 10 million, and all the levels that go with that.  His constitution of 18 is reduced to 17, and where the maximum +12 'buffed' constitution was once 30, it is now 29.  In the process of regaining strength to the attaching strands, he went from 9 SS's to 4 SS's lost.  Were he to have had SMD, and were at 14 SS's, he would go to 9 SS's lost.
 

Just for the sake of discussion, that would make the healer NPC more powerful than the Soul Mother.

[Acacea]

Well, I think he was just posting the 'price' and all that for discussion, not so much who you get it from...after all, in any return system at all, something has to trigger it. So just replace "npc" with "trigger" and mostly the same thing is intact for comment

[Chongo]

Totally fair Dorg.  I was just answering Ed's question in a manner that I feel would play out the best in practice.  I'm not going to weigh in on too many of my opinions on the DT system, I don't think it will do anyone any good.  But in regard to my answer to Ed's question I'll say this.  I've got a pretty good grasp on how it actually plays out in game amongst all the varying types of players.  What I suggested in response to his query is the beginnings of what I deem the most non-preferential means of doing this in a manner that will feel good for all players, allow for a viable mechanical option which doesn't require numerous systems or direct GM action, and maintains the atmosphere of life, death, and loss.  Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into DT discussion.
 
 It's on Ed to look at the lore/realism side of it.
 
 O.o

[Pen N Popper]

But it shouldn't be made to breed exclusivity (i.e., don't make it a million gold). When we do things like making this process require a certain epic level, or an epic item, or an absurd amount of gold... we reap what we sow.

Bravo!  Make everyone have an equal chance at making the sacrifice required to live in the manner they choose to live.